Cultural Marxism? or Cultural Capitalism--A rebuttal in good faith

[newarkvol]

Many on VN continually refer to Identity politics, Wokeness, etc. as "Cultural Marxism."It seems many on here have a very vague understanding of Marxism and confuse it with more current socio-political issues at the expense of pressing material conditions for the majority of the country.

I would argue that this is, at best, a poor description of this "movement" and at worst simply an erroneous designation. I would posit that to a large degree this "ideology'" is just as much a adverse product of postmodern (Big L) Liberal capitalism/neo-liberalism than anything to do with Marx's critique of capital. Please see Corporate America's ready embrace of all these cultural movements.--from the sexual revolution to feminist movement to LGBTQ and BLM.

Yes, Critical Theory was spawned purely out of academia (Frankfurt School/French Structuralists). Yes, these writer's drew inspiration from a Marxist perspective/critique; HOWEVER, pro-capitalist governments in the past actively financed and promoted a great deal of critical theory (see links). Many of these academics were actually very critical of orthodox Marxism. --- The rationale for Western governments: to neutralize the actual anti-imperialist, working-class socialists for the purpose of re-directing the left into faux-radical movements that will never fundamentally threaten capital.

The modern left AND right has for the most part swapped economics for the culture war. Hell, Adorno and Horkheimer would be in full agreement that the modern media landscape is a degenerate cesspool.

It appears the right mistakenly believes what they are seeing today is Marxism. But, I think it largely comes down to a form of identity politics that that Repubs just do not like.

However, it must be said that IF Marx were actually as popular with the humanities graduate student crowd as Marcuse, Habermas, and Foucault then the powers that be might have something to really worry about.

Anyway this is a very good vid explaining our current phenomenon----explains much better than I can...


https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.PDF
Why the CIA Loved French New Left Philosophy, and Why They Were Wrong
Cultural Marxism
The Politics of Difference | Cultural Marxism or Cultural Capitalism — PETER ROLLINS

 

[NorthDallas40]

Marxism at its core was based on class warfare. That is a fairly structural base to what is happening here and can’t be ignored. But yeah there are other components too.

 

[Roustabout]

Many on VN continually refer to Identity politics, Wokeness, etc. as "Cultural Marxism."It seems many on here have a very vague understanding of Marxism and confuse it with more current socio-political issues at the expense of pressing material conditions for the majority of the country.

I would argue that this is, at best, a poor description of this "movement" and at worst simply an erroneous designation. I would posit that to a large degree this "ideology'" is just as much a adverse product of postmodern (Big L) Liberal capitalism/neo-liberalism than anything to do with Marx's critique of capital. Please see Corporate America's ready embrace of all these cultural movements.--from the sexual revolution to feminist movement to LGBTQ and BLM.

Yes, Critical Theory was spawned purely out of academia (Frankfurt School/French Structuralists). Yes, these writer's drew inspiration from a Marxist perspective/critique; HOWEVER, pro-capitalist governments in the past actively financed and promoted a great deal of critical theory (see links). Many of these academics were actually very critical of orthodox Marxism. --- The rationale for Western governments: to neutralize the actual anti-imperialist, working-class socialists for the purpose of re-directing the left into faux-radical movements that will never fundamentally threaten capital.

The modern left AND right has for the most part swapped economics for the culture war. Hell, Adorno and Horkheimer would be in full agreement that the modern media landscape is a degenerate cesspool.

It appears the right mistakenly believes what they are seeing today is Marxism. But, I think it largely comes down to a form of identity politics that that Repubs just do not like.

However, it must be said that IF Marx were actually as popular with the humanities graduate student crowd as Marcuse, Habermas, and Foucault then the powers that be might have something to really worry about.

Anyway this is a very good vid explaining our current phenomenon----explains much better than I can...


https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.PDF
Why the CIA Loved French New Left Philosophy, and Why They Were Wrong
Cultural Marxism
The Politics of Difference | Cultural Marxism or Cultural Capitalism — PETER ROLLINS

Is/was Castro a Marxist?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Is/was Castro a Marxist?

Castro stoked class warfare to a high degree yes so there was definitely a Marxist component to his agenda.

 

[Roustabout]

Castro stoked class warfare to a high degree yes so there was definitely a Marxist component to his agenda.

I’d agree. Was just wanting to here OPs thoughts.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I’d agree. Was just wanting to here OPs thoughts.

Castro stoked Marxist ideologies to gain power and implemented a Communist government once in power (the state controls all the resources and means of production)

 

[newarkvol]

Marxism at its core was based on class warfare. That is a fairly structural base to what is happening here and can’t be ignored. But yeah there are other components too.

Marx was a dynamicist-- He saw history as a flow or progression with some periods of regression factored in... organized in temporary forms such as feudalism, capitalism -- But he had the idea that material conditions dictated or shaped ideas which was opposite of Hegelian thought. But in no way was Marx a structuralist ---if you mean he thought society/civilization will likely be or tended to be organized with rules and meanings fitting together like a well-ordered system---rather Marx saw the contradictions in a capitalist society where there May be an illusion of unity at times that belies the fact that human society is always in flux and a feudal/capitalist order will not be sustainable. That history does not end----This may hard for us to see or imagine in our day to day existence.

One of the main contradictions that Marx diagnosed is the volatility of capitalism---series of booms and bust that are unsustainable... But more importantly Marx pointed to the oligopoly that is now a feature of our "system"----when the market is severed from any improvements in the overall society and is simply an means of the accumulation of capital in an ever smaller number of entities---which inevitably leads to the destabilization of a society .

 

[NorthDallas40]

Marx was a dynamicist-- He saw history as a flow or progression with some periods of regression factored in... organized in temporary forms such as feudalism, capitalism -- But he had the idea that material conditions will sha pe ideas which was opposite of Hegelian thought. But in no way was Marx a structuralist ---if you mean he thought society/civilization will likely be or tended to be organized with rules and meanings fitting together like a well-ordered system---rather Marx saw the contradictions in a capitalist society where there May be an illusion of unity at times that belies the fact that human society is always in flux and a feudal/capitalist order will not be sustainable. That history does not end----This may hard for us to see or imagine in our day to day existence.

One of the main contradictions that Marx diagnosed is the volatility of capitalism---series of booms and bust that are unsustainable... But more importantly Marx pointed to the oligopoly that is now a feature of our "system"----when the market is severed from any improvements in the overall society and is simply an means of the accumulation of capital in an ever smaller number of entities---which inevitably leads to the destabilization of a society .

No I was using structure to refer to the makeup of his ideology. Emphasizing class warfare and continual class antagonism is a cornerstone of his method for change.

And I do find the entire last paragraph rather ominous in describing capitalism. I believe Marx saw it that way sure but I disagree that capitalism is unsustainable. Of the three main resource and means of production ownership capitalism (private ownership of resources and production) is the only method which promotes growth when you factor in human behavior. Socialism (ownership by the people collectively) and Communism (ownership by the state) both stifle individual liberty and motivation.

 

[newarkvol]

I’d agree. Was just wanting to here OPs thoughts.

Castro Became an authoritarian mainly due to the largest imperial power in the world being 90 miles and actively attempting to sabotage any gains from overthrowing Batista. Years of trade blockades and assassination attempts--We made it very difficult to see if a flourishing civil society, working economy and or robust freedoms could be realized cultivated in Cuba--Castro achieved his goals and then the Cuban people paid for his megalomania.

You can be the kind of authoritarian the western media dubs ‘a brutal authoritarian dictatorship’ or you can be the type that gets overthrown by the CIA.--see Guatemala, Honduras Chile, ---oh hell---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Castro Became an authoritarian mainly due to the largest imperial power in the world being 90 miles and actively attempting to sabotage any gains from overthrowing Batista. Years of trade blockades and assassination attempts--We made it very difficult to see if a flourishing civil society, working economy and or robust freedoms could be realized cultivated in Cuba--Castro achieved his goals and then the Cuban people paid for his megalomania.

You can be the kind of authoritarian the western media dubs ‘a brutal authoritarian dictatorship’ or you can be the type that gets overthrown by the CIA.--see Guatemala, Honduras Chile, ---oh hell---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Oh the litany of plots the US had against Castro to destabilize Cuba and as many plots to kill him.

 

[newarkvol]

No I was using structure to refer to the makeup of his ideology. Emphasizing class warfare and continual class antagonism is a cornerstone of his method for change.

And I do find the entire last paragraph rather ominous in describing capitalism. I believe Marx saw it that way sure but I disagree that capitalism is unsustainable. Of the three main resource and means of production ownership capitalism (private ownership of resources and production) is the only method which promotes growth when you factor in human behavior. Socialism (ownership by the people collectively) and Communism (ownership by the state) both stifle individual liberty and motivation.

Yes--I figured you were not discussing the various schools of Marxism --structuralist , analytical, Instrumentalist, etc---but wasnt sure ---

Anyway I believe we are straying off topic ---I was hoping to discuss the over-represented bourgeoisie elements that are wholeheartedly represented in the protests...and if you have wondered why--- Maybe material conditions are becoming more precarious ---many of the managerial class are over educated (or over-institutionalized) and their precious children might wake up to a unstable existence which is unthinkable...soooo..Liberal "anti racism" is very much becoming the ideology of corporate structures and therefore PMC’s

Upper middle class "liberals" having a culture war with Upper middle class conservatives is always the historical M.O. for both groups---

The revolution won’t be televised .....BUT THIS revolution is not only televised--- it is actively sponsored by corporations and media..almost like they would prefer it to the real revolution of the forgotten working class

This divide and-conquer slow boil neoliberal "revolution" is just one in a long line of "revolutions" backed by the powers that be while the 500 richest people in the world having gotten $800 billion dollars richer during a pandemic



The Real Class War - American Affairs Journal
The Characterless Opportunism of the Managerial Class - American Affairs Journal

 

[newarkvol]

y

Oh the litany of plots the US had against Castro to destabilize Cuba and as many plots to kill him.

Yes? And..?--

 

[NurseGoodVol]

y

Yes? And..?--

Just a comment about the US and how urgently they wanted Castro shut down or gone.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes--I figured you were not discussing the various schools of Marxism --structuralist , analytical, Instrumentalist, etc---but wasnt sure ---

Anyway I believe we are straying off topic ---I was hoping to discuss the over-represented bourgeoisie elements that are wholeheartedly represented in the protests...and if you have wondered why--- Maybe material conditions are becoming more precarious ---many of the managerial class are over educated (or over-institutionalized) and their precious children might wake up to a unstable existence which is unthinkable...soooo..Liberal "anti racism" is very much becoming the ideology of corporate structures and therefore PMC’s

Upper middle class "liberals" having a culture war with Upper middle class conservatives is always the historical M.O. for both groups---

The revolution won’t be televised .....BUT THIS revolution is not only televised--- it is actively sponsored by corporations and media..almost like they would prefer it to the real revolution of the forgotten working class

This divide and-conquer slow boil neoliberal "revolution" is just one in a long line of "revolutions" backed by the powers that be while the 500 richest people in the world having gotten $800 billion dollars richer during a pandemic



The Real Class War - American Affairs Journal
The Characterless Opportunism of the Managerial Class - American Affairs Journal

It's sounds as though you're claiming that the age-old communist tactic of propaganda has now morphed into being Capitalism. When Stalin owned the printing presses and universities to stoke the class warfare, it was Communist propaganda. Now that Marxists own the media and run the universities, it's corporate "sponsorship" and capitalism.

 

[hog88]

y

Yes? And..?--

And we should have been better at assassination.

 

[LouderVol]

Is the OP simply a semantics point? Or is it trying to influence the conversation in a meaningful way?

I didnt really see anything advancing the conversation.

 

[Wafflestomper]

This is an interesting conversation. I'm not really into political philosophy but I've thought for a long time that the people who talk about Marxism in these settings routinely use it as a derogatory statement rather than as part of a substantive critique of a particular position.

The term Marxist has been so overused it's almost lost any meaning aside from perhaps "left-leaning person with whom I disagree." Sort of how the charge of being a racist has nearly lost its meaning due to abuse.

What are the minimum qualifications to be considered a Marxist anyway? Do you have to believe in communism, or is it enough to find his critiques of capitalism compelling? Something else?

 

[LouderVol]

This is an interesting conversation. I'm not really into political philosophy but I've thought for a long time that the people who talk about Marxism in these settings routinely use it as a derogatory statement rather than as part of a substantive critique of a particular position.

The term Marxist has been so overused it's almost lost any meaning aside from perhaps "left-leaning person with whom I disagree." Sort of how the charge of being a racist has nearly lost its meaning due to abuse.

What are the minimum qualifications to be considered a Marxist anyway? Do you have to believe in communism, or is it enough to find his critiques of capitalism compelling? Something else?

For me if I am not being quiet literal its anytime "the government should" comes up. Especially with regards to the economy, a business, or etc.

Just like pure or real socialism has not been tried pure or real capitalism hasnt been tried. At least on large enough scale to matter.

 

[newarkvol]

Is the OP simply a semantics point? Or is it trying to influence the conversation in a meaningful way?

I didnt really see anything advancing the conversation.

PART of my point IS semantic and was directed at the '"Marxist" BLM thread" that has almost 6000 posts. That title is representative of how many posters on VN appear to see our current political environment in stark, simplistic, and inaccurate binaries.

Kinda like how Trump is called a fascist by neolibs ----Trump may be a "performative Fascist," (demonization of immigrants- always reinforcing a distinction between us and them (the terrorized housewives in suburbia was especially telling), resurgent nationalism, "lawless cities with minorities," etc. But he has a bad case of adult ADHD/ personality disorder-- and simply wants to be the center of attention at ALL times. He doesn't understand the workings of our government or what it really means to wield power well enough to pull off a Reichstag fire. As long as he is cutting taxes for the investor class nobody cares about his idiocy.

However, my original point was to discuss how these protests will probably Not result in a material improvement for the working and lower classes black or white. A great deal of the protesters have no connection to the working class whatsoever (see nypost link for most egregious examples). Many of these protests are organized by
over-educated middle to upper middle class professional managers--(or soon to be) --that don't understand/don't care that extra-judicial police killings are mainly a result of people being poor . I can see many of these folks using this movement for an extensive resume entry. Just riding the wave to some corporate job as a diversity consultant which corporate America will happily provide.

The modern American Right won most battles against the left --with the assistance of Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama--- And now the left is so consumed with the minutia and self-cannibalism of identity politics --it has completely ceded all economic matters to neoliberalism.

Semantics do matter sometimes --- A lot of these marchers are not in this for the proletariat.
And Again The Right won! (specifically the libertarian right)---so why the boogie-man term Marxist? ---

The left has not yet come to terms with such a total defeat/ capitulation to the right---Starting with the destruction of the working class/ labor movement, dismantling of much of the New Deal safety net, redistribution of wealth to the top decile, the domination and the individual's subordination in the workplace, intensive spread of market discipline/saturation into every sphere of life in what used to be shared social goods (schools, health care, retirement etc---the ways into which we as individuals are pushed into being market actors),, the reactionary mobilization against the Civil Rights movement (U.S. is much more segregated than early 80's- ) --

So what if some gay people get to marry--- This is met with little opposition on the right anymore because these folks buy stuff and corporate America sees another market. Hell, JP Morgan chase had a pride float in the late 90's---and VN would be losing there minds if it exited then

Ironically, This is why the modern right is also structurally weak-- and mostly-- ideologically bankrupt... And why Trump is one of the weakest presidents of the last 50 years. He is a useful idiot to throw out some populist red meat and then cut taxes for the rich. But GOPs only purpose is to "own the libs" and/or organizationally mobilize against any ideas emanating from its left. And the mainstream left resembles the Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller only WOKE...

We are all homo economicus at the moment whether we want to be are not---whether it is unnatural or not.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/09/inside-the-privileged-lives-of-protesters-busted-for-manhattan-riots/
Segregation in America

 

[volinbham]

Marx was a dynamicist-- He saw history as a flow or progression with some periods of regression factored in... organized in temporary forms such as feudalism, capitalism -- But he had the idea that material conditions dictated or shaped ideas which was opposite of Hegelian thought. But in no way was Marx a structuralist ---if you mean he thought society/civilization will likely be or tended to be organized with rules and meanings fitting together like a well-ordered system---rather Marx saw the contradictions in a capitalist society where there May be an illusion of unity at times that belies the fact that human society is always in flux and a feudal/capitalist order will not be sustainable. That history does not end----This may hard for us to see or imagine in our day to day existence.

One of the main contradictions that Marx diagnosed is the volatility of capitalism---series of booms and bust that are unsustainable... But more importantly Marx pointed to the oligopoly that is now a feature of our "system"----when the market is severed from any improvements in the overall society and is simply an means of the accumulation of capital in an ever smaller number of entities---which inevitably leads to the destabilization of a society .

Yet the history of the last many decades shows that globally more people have been brought out of poverty due to capitalism than any other system. Marxism certainly didn't result in this and we saw capital accumulation in a small number of entities under Marxist systems.

As for the original premise if you read Critical Race Theory and look at how it's supporters apply it there is no question it is considerably more Marxist than Capitalist.

 

[volinbham]

PART of my point IS semantic and was directed at the '"Marxist" BLM thread" that has almost 6000 posts. That title is representative of how many posters on VN appear to see our current political environment in stark, simplistic, and inaccurate binaries.

Kinda like how Trump is called a fascist by neolibs ----Trump may be a "performative Fascist," (demonization of immigrants- always reinforcing a distinction between us and them (the terrorized housewives in suburbia was especially telling), resurgent nationalism, "lawless cities with minorities," etc. But he has a bad case of adult ADHD/ personality disorder-- and simply wants to be the center of attention at ALL times. He doesn't understand the workings of our government or what it really means to wield power well enough to pull off a Reichstag fire. As long as he is cutting taxes for the investor class nobody cares about his idiocy.

However, my original point was to discuss how these protests will probably Not result in a material improvement for the working and lower classes black or white. A great deal of the protesters have no connection to the working class whatsoever (see nypost link for most egregious examples). Many of these protests are organized by
over-educated middle to upper middle class professional managers--(or soon to be) --that don't understand/don't care that extra-judicial police killings are mainly a result of people being poor . I can see many of these folks using this movement for an extensive resume entry. Just riding the wave to some corporate job as a diversity consultant which corporate America will happily provide.

The modern American Right won most battles against the left --with the assistance of Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama--- And now the left is so consumed with the minutia and self-cannibalism of identity politics --it has completely ceded all economic matters to neoliberalism.

Semantics do matter sometimes --- A lot of these marchers are not in this for the proletariat.
And Again The Right won! (specifically the libertarian right)---so why the boogie-man term Marxist? ---

The left has not yet come to terms with such a total defeat/ capitulation to the right---Starting with the destruction of the working class/ labor movement, dismantling of much of the New Deal safety net, redistribution of wealth to the top decile, the domination and the individual's subordination in the workplace, intensive spread of market discipline/saturation into every sphere of life in what used to be shared social goods (schools, health care, retirement etc---the ways into which we as individuals are pushed into being market actors),, the reactionary mobilization against the Civil Rights movement (U.S. is much more segregated than early 80's- ) --

So what if some gay people get to marry--- This is met with little opposition on the right anymore because these folks buy stuff and corporate America sees another market. Hell, JP Morgan chase had a pride float in the late 90's---and VN would be losing there minds if it exited then

Ironically, This is why the modern right is also structurally weak-- and mostly-- ideologically bankrupt... And why Trump is one of the weakest presidents of the last 50 years. He is a useful idiot to throw out some populist red meat and then cut taxes for the rich. But GOPs only purpose is to "own the libs" and/or organizationally mobilize against any ideas emanating from its left. And the mainstream left resembles the Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller only WOKE...

We are all homo economicus at the moment whether we want to be are not---whether it is unnatural or not.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/09/inside-the-privileged-lives-of-protesters-busted-for-manhattan-riots/
Segregation in America

Honestly I don't know what world you are describing. The safety net of today would make New Dealers blush for not dreaming big enough. Workers have more rights than ever with labor unions being replaced by government agencies (notably OSHA, EEOC among others), healthcare is more government supported than ever - check New Deal or even 50s era health care. As for more segregation it's interesting that the wokest of the woke are advocates of segregation.

 

[volinbham]

to the original premise I'd suggest that the Critical Race Theory that undergirds the wokeness/identity politics extremes is rooted in Marxist theory. The fact that people in power embrace it to maintain their power doesn't mean they are the instigators of the movement. They are making decisions to preserve their position.

If I understand the allegation that those Capitalists in power are actually the originators of the movement and it's a ploy to prevent real revolution to some type of non-Capitalist reality - well, QANON would be proud of that theory.

 

[newarkvol]

Yet the history of the last many decades shows that globally more people have been brought out of poverty due to capitalism than any other system. Marxism certainly didn't result in this and we saw capital accumulation in a small number of entities under Marxist systems.

As for the original premise if you read Critical Race Theory and look at how it's supporters apply it there is no question it is considerably more Marxist than Capitalist.

These are some of the predictable arguments and I will address them at a later date. I am tired.

For the time being---Marx was actually quite impressed by the productive powers of capitalism, and granted that industrialization could lead to an increase in the absolute standard of living. But his view of poverty is a relative one, where the overall needs of individuals increase with the economic development of their society.

"Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature."

 

[LouderVol]

However, my original point was to discuss how these protests will probably Not result in a material improvement for the working and lower classes black or white. A great deal of the protesters have no connection to the working class whatsoever (see nypost link for most egregious examples). Many of these protests are organized by
over-educated middle to upper middle class professional managers--(or soon to be) --that don't understand/don't care that extra-judicial police killings are mainly a result of people being poor . I can see many of these folks using this movement for an extensive resume entry. Just riding the wave to some corporate job as a diversity consultant which corporate America will happily provide.

The modern American Right won most battles against the left --with the assistance of Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama--- And now the left is so consumed with the minutia and self-cannibalism of identity politics --it has completely ceded all economic matters to neoliberalism.

Semantics do matter sometimes --- A lot of these marchers are not in this for the proletariat.
And Again The Right won! (specifically the libertarian right)---so why the boogie-man term Marxist? ---

The left has not yet come to terms with such a total defeat/ capitulation to the right---Starting with the destruction of the working class/ labor movement, dismantling of much of the New Deal safety net, redistribution of wealth to the top decile, the domination and the individual's subordination in the workplace, intensive spread of market discipline/saturation into every sphere of life in what used to be shared social goods (schools, health care, retirement etc---the ways into which we as individuals are pushed into being market actors),, the reactionary mobilization against the Civil Rights movement (U.S. is much more segregated than early 80's- ) --

So what if some gay people get to marry--- This is met with little opposition on the right anymore because these folks buy stuff and corporate America sees another market. Hell, JP Morgan chase had a pride float in the late 90's---and VN would be losing there minds if it exited then

Ironically, This is why the modern right is also structurally weak-- and mostly-- ideologically bankrupt... And why Trump is one of the weakest presidents of the last 50 years. He is a useful idiot to throw out some populist red meat and then cut taxes for the rich. But GOPs only purpose is to "own the libs" and/or organizationally mobilize against any ideas emanating from its left. And the mainstream left resembles the Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller only WOKE...

We are all homo economicus at the moment whether we want to be are not---whether it is unnatural or not.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/09/inside-the-privileged-lives-of-protesters-busted-for-manhattan-riots/
Segregation in America

I feel like this is the same sort of argument we would get from Marx. Define things in such a way so that you can defeat them even if no one else would ever define them that way. Also like a good Marxist you make things about class to divide the people up. You also remain vague to the ways you are wanting society to change in order to call more attention to the exaggerated wrong doings of the system in place. Unlike Marx you have history to look on where you should know better. But you dont.

I dont know of many who would say the right has won. I dont even know many on the right who would claim the victories you lay at their feet as good/right things. Again you rely on the marxian strategy of playing up your enemies to build moral support for your arguments. Ignoring the realities.

As bham said there are a ton more social programs today than there was in 30s. The accrual of wealth at the top in the last decades has been a direct result of government intervention. Regulations favor the corporations. Just look at the most recent happenings during Covid. Small stores the government has shut down while the big boys of Walmart and Amazon are making money hand over fist.

As long as the government picks winners and losers beyond direct contracts we are too far left to lay blame at the feet of the ideological right.

 

[Wafflestomper]

As bham said there are a ton more social programs today than there was in 30s. The accrual of wealth at the top in the last decades has been a direct result of government intervention. Regulations favor the corporations. Just look at the most recent happenings during Covid. Small stores the government has shut down while the big boys of Walmart and Amazon are making money hand over fist.

As long as the government picks winners and losers beyond direct contracts we are too far left to lay blame at the feet of the ideological right.

Marx said that capitalism, like other economic systems, has in itself internal conflicts which will eventually result in revolution. One such example of this is that capitalists (i.e., business owners) are constantly seeking to gain more capital, as it is an intrinsic good in the system. A convenient way for them to get more capital is through exploiting the worker somehow--for example, by eliminating staff or by reducing wages. But by doing so, they're reducing the amount of consumers which can buy their products or services. Marx said that without intervention this would ensure that the rich get richer and poor get poorer.